David Davidson's page

@Yellow

That was a lot of numbers that I don't want to deal with. You really didn't have to post that.

I'm not going to run empire building in such a managed way. Basically, the party's ownership of companies and towns (and the subsequent prosperity of each) will be handled in a more abstract manner that will cause their rank to go up, prestige to go up, reputation to go up, and perhaps bolster their salary. Mostly they will let the things that PCs want to do.

"Hey, DM, with my company having a monopoly on the spice trade to Wyvern's Island, could I have them get me information on where this new form of magical poison is coming from?"

"Sure - it will take the next crew a month to get back, so I'll roll for them after the game and give you an answer then."

@DM Jeff

Checked it out and ended up buying it. Thanks for the info!

@Callum

I've considered it, but I don't think it will be totally necessary. The story is going to be the rise of the PCs from the level of "grunt" (well, elite grunt) to "leader." If I let the PCs start out as leaders, many of their order's surprises will be revealed earlier than planned. All kinds of intrigue will be all over the place.

I am putting together a game that will be quite difficult to handle: an empire building campaign. The PCs (who start as level 5 gestalt characters) will be memebers of one of the many organizations/orders trying to repair and country in the aftermath of a devastating war. Dungeon-crawls will still take place, but they will be the exception to the rule.

As the PCs gain rank, prestige, and troops in the organization, they will reforge shattered alliances, liaison with groups that may aid them, and try to, essentially, create a land in their image over the course of the campaign - which will run to level 15 (most likely) over a course of twenty in-game years.

This is what I need help with: handling NPC organizations and companies. If the PCs so choose, they will be able to form their own companies/business ventures, ally with/fight against similar organizations, and basically have a large part in the reformation of a new world. Now, I don't want to kill my players with massive dice rolls to figure out how much pull they have with an organization, but I don't want to boil it down to a single Charisma check, either. To realistically handle NPC organizations (whether they are a coven of druids or a trade company of merchants), I wish to implement a system outlining how much influence the players have with these people. I have it broken down to this:

REPUTATION: Through their exploits, the party will gain three different kinds of reputation points, whether that rep is positive or negative.

Local Reputation is how people in small towns or cities view the PCs.
National Reputation is how the governments and powerful orders view the PCs.
Mover/Shaker Reputation is how epic-level druidic orders, extra-planar liaisons, and ancient dragons view the characters.

Each area will be rated 1-20, 1 being the equivalent of a 1st level character (barely a blip on the radar), whereas 20 will be household name. A reputation of 20 with a government, for example, means that the PCs can drop by for a spot of tea with the king and talk to him on a first-name basis.

Reputation is earned by adventuring, doing good things for NPCs, and pulling off feats of excellent roleplay. For example, making a Knowledge (nobility) roll on a duke to find out his family history and then having the bard compose a song about his father's exploits would give instant reputation awards. Walking up to that same duke and saying, "Which dungeon do you want me to crawl through?" would not.

POWER RATING: Each organization will be given a power rating of (you guessed it) 1-20. A power rating of 5 would be a professional rating (small trade company, city government, a cabal of seven mid-level elven wizards living in the woods), whereas 10 would be the cream of the crop in their field. Anything above 10 is pretty much legendary.

Each organization will require that a party has at least as much reputation for them to even be considered. A party with reputation 2, for instance, would not be able to get past the front door of a noble's estate if said noble has a reputation of 8 or 9. Any diplomacy checks against that noble will suffer massive penalties.

Now, getting in a company's good graces isn't just about numbers. A druidic order may value natural conservation, and so if the PCs happen to be admant about preserving nature and killing her enemies, the organization will notice the PCs' congruent values. Conversely, if a thieves guild witnesses the PC's doing many lawful, righteouss things, they won't help the PCs regardless of how much rep they have... unless there's something in it for them.

ON THE INSIDE: Once the party is recognized as an equal or potential equal by whatever NPCs they are trying to influence, -then- they may begin making their diplomacy checks and such to sway that organization's opinion. They will need to prove their worth further, however, usually by questing in said people's names ("Ya know, guys, I'd love to let you use my company's ship to cross the Black Death Sea of Despair and Horribleness, but first I was wondering if you'd take care of that ogre who's been harassing my niece. She's a pure girl, you know.").

This is what I got so far. What do you think? Think it has promise?

I second Aubrey. Think about why the monsters would be in a dungeon.

What I do is plan a story around a dungeon. Rather than your typical "Monsters need places to live so they gathered in the dungeon" mentality, I only put monsters in if they make sense.

A beholder is not going to spend all of his time hanging out in a stone room. He's going to be out trying to subvert nations or attending to mysterious, ineffable agendas. Perhaps, however, his base of operations/bedroom is in an old keep, or an abandoned mine.

Work from the top down. So this beholder, when he rests after a hard day of sabotaging the mortal realms, needs guards to protect his goodies. Think about where the dungeon is located, what creatures would be native to the surrounding area, and whether or not they would work for a beholder for whatever reasons.

In a forested area where there are many underground tunnels, the beholder may find indigenous koblds, bugbears, and maybe even a few basilisks to help him out. Now you got the beholder, his troops, and his base of operations.

The rest is easy. Use the Monster Manual to look up creature organizations. Outline power centers and bases of operations for the forces as a whole (the kobold barracks would probably be apart from the bugbear barracks in order to eliminate any nastiness that may break out due to racism) and plan the different areas accordingly. Since kobolds are trap builders, they would most likely be near a room with trap making supplies. The bugbears would probably be posted up near an armory. The basilisks, due to their slightly more feral, unpredictable, and violent nature, would likely be chained guards roaming a locked hallway or room near the beholder's keep, somewhere they could be contained if they got out of control.

Add in some patrols, some guards, badguys stalking the PCs through the dark halls, and you've got yourself a realistic dungeon chock full of combat, hack-n'-slash goodness. The work up is good, too: the PCs will completely smoke-check the low-level guards... stoke their egos then hit them with the hard stuff. Let the bastards get sloppy and then throw that sorcerer 8/rogue 3 kobold leader into the mix.

That is how you plan realistic and enjoyable dungeons. Think about what a bad creature would -use- a dungeon for and then go from there. Hope this helps.

I have a soft-spot for sorcerers. I think that the lore behind charisma-driven spellcasters is very intriguing. Sorcerers, with their poetic abilities, have the kind of swashbuckling savvy and magical moxie that is much different from the logical approach to the arcane commonly used by wizards.

I've always thought that WotC did sorcerers wrong. All a sorcerer is a wizard with far less spells known and two more spells per level per day. If anything, I'd suggest nixing sorcerer spells altogether and give them a more direct control over magic. They should make them like warlocks only less... contrived.

When I run games, I use a little-known (to my players, at least) version of sorcerers where I give them access to clerical domains. A sorcerer with the Fire domain, for example, has all those domain spells automatically known but cannot cast ice or electricity spells. A healing socerer can use all the healing spells listed, but cannot cast necromancy spells or spells or illusion spells. I also give elemental sorcerers bonuses on diplomacy, bluff, and sense motive checks when dealing with creatures of their elemental subtype.

Sorcerers are really only good, sadly, for magical blasters. But when you have the warlock class who, at 5th level, can charm people at will and deals 3d6 damage every round with a ranged touch attack (not to mention the invocations that allow the blast to sicken, slow, blind, etc. the enemy), why would anyone want to be a sorcerer?

Now I hear that 4e has turned the tables so sorcerers are now more likeable than wizards! I think that the sorcerer is done the wrong way. Instead of making a wizard with more spells, they should give the sorcerers more spells known but only allow them to cast from certain lists (ala beguiler, which is a masterfully done class). Perhaps a sorcerer can't prepare a spell from every school, but maybe he can spontaneously cast any spell from the Illusion and Enchantment school.

To avoid people picking the Evocation school and becoming far too powerful, I'd say bar the overtly offensive schools and instead give the sorcerer the ability to change any spell/day into an offensive spell that does damage: something like 1d8 damage per spell level against one target, 1d6 damage per spell level in a line (10 ft. x spell level), or 1d4 damage per spell level in a cone (15 ft. + 5 ft. per spell level).

Then again, I might be crazy. What I think, though, is that sorcerers and wizards should be vastly different.

Wow.

I totally missed the "Foot in the RPG Door" thread. Whoops.

This is for me and anyone else who hopes to one day work for an RPG company or create their own RPG.

To be a writer, you submit your manuscript to an editor. To be a painter, you submit your work to a gallery. How do you get noticed, however, if you wish to write for an RPG company? After you play for some many years, does your epic level of nerdiness suddenly make you a blip on some supernatural WotC radar, or is there actual, legitimate channels to go through?

Any assistance or similar questions will be welcomed. Again, this thread is not for me, but for anyone who wants to know the same thing.

I remember as third level characters,we once killed an illithid in the surprise round. Even better, there were only two of us, no one else got to go yet.

Illithids are such stylish villians. Doesn't it make you sad when things like this happen?

In an urban game, the party ambushed a river boat that was transporting unconscious citizens to the secret underground laboratory of a mind flayer sorcerer (11th level sorcerer - the party was level 4). They were supposed to NOT ATTACK THE MINDFLAYER as I made it clear through roleplay that he was VERY, VERY powerful.

They attacked him anyways. But not before the changeling rogue turned into Matthew, one of the boat guards, and tried to get information from the illithid.

The illithid, Mr. Ixis, unfortunately saw the real Matthew's dead body on the floor. The PCs forgot to hide it.

"Odd that you're talking to me, Matthew, as it seems that you're dead," said Mr. Ixis.

"Yeah," said the rogue. And then the party jumped out, won initiative, and managed to, somehow, all roll critical hits, dealing a total of 150 hp damage to the mindflayer. There went the game.

"Legacy" was a serial killer stalking my homebrew city of Xandia in a low-steampunk/low-fantasy Renaissance setting I created. Due to the racist depredations of the nobility visited upon his people, the Malgorians, nearly a centure past, he went about the city hunting down the nobles' descendants and killing them in ways that were rough approximations of the more noteworthy deaths of his ancestors.

For the falsely accused thief that was whipped and disemboweled, he disemboweled a young woman in a meat house. For the orphans sent to work in the mines that died of the Black Lung, he soaked burlap sacks in tar, put them over two young aristocrats' heads, and lit them on fire.

So, the showdown came on top of an icy church roof. Legacy (an expert 2/rogue 5/assassin 3 with a sentient dagger called "Jack" that allowed him to use ethereal jaunt 1/day) had a balance check of +yes and lured the party onto the roof to try and catch them off guard so that he could employ his amazing sneak-attack damage when they were flat footed. The one thing I didn't count on was the urban druid with the ability to call lightning from the sky. It was stormy out, too.

Legacy took one hit, slipped, and fell to his death. The end.

The adventure paths seem to be a mix...

The Pathfinder 'world' has been touched on in the 3 most recent adventure paths, but the book will not be released til Aug 13th at Gencon along wth the Beat of the Pathfinder game system...

However, from what Ive seen it will support all levels and styles of play as did the core D&D books

Thanks.

I've actually never played in the Pathfinder world, though the forum I game on sports many adventures set in said universe. I can tell from looking at it that it seems to be pretty high-fantasy (which is fine by me when done right, even though I prefer low-fantasy games), but my only reservation is that, along with the rest of DnD, it makes too many assumptions about the characters, that they exist solely to crawl through dungeons and kill the bad guys.

Can anyone help me out, here? Does Pathfinder support a variety of play styles, or is it tailored toward the traditional hack-n'-slash variety of gaming?

As far as 4th edition goes, I do not enjoy it and will not play it. Those who do want to play it, however, are not wrong in any way... they just prefer a different kind of DnD than I do - you know, the kind that sucks. Oh!

Ha. Just kidding.

Wow - I was really impresed with the input. I've taken into consideration everything said and finalized it as such, using a few variant paladin rules:

Spellcasting: The idea for the paladin is more of a arcane defender rather than an actual arcanist - as such, I deigned to nix giving him the abilities to cast spells as his abilities need to focus around arcane defense, rather than arcane offense. Though I used canon DnD deities, I made Wee Jas a little more... friendly.

ALIGNMENT: LN

SKILLS: Remove Ride, Animal Empathy, Heal, and Knowledge (nobility); add Knowledge (arcana), Use Magic Device, and Spellcraft.

DETECT/SMITE: Remove Detect Evil, add Detect Magic. Lost Smite Evil and gained Smite Undead/Opposed Spellcaster (this will eliminate the issue of having a paladin with a useless Smite Evil when he cannot use Detect Evil). It will be my decision whether or not a spellcaster is actually directly opposed to the goddess' will.

TURN UNDEAD: Changed to Rebuke Undead - I think this will be a good swap for spells, considering that a good paladin's spells aren't all that great, and allowing him to have a personal strike-force of undead creatures more than makes up for it.

SPELLS: Still no spells.

OTHER ABILITIES: Removed Mount as in PHB II. Replaced Remove Disease with Aura of Disrupt Undead (Undead cannot be summoned/created within aura, all undead within aura take -2 to attack and damage rolls). Removed Aura of Courage and replaced with Aura of Sanctity (Paladin immune to death effects, allies within aura gain +4 bonus on saves against death spells).

Finally, the Lay on Hands change - glad you thought it was clever.

Paladin can use Lay on Hand points to grant self and allies SR equal to points spent. HOWEVER - these points only last 1 round/level + CHA modifier - ex. A paladin of 3rd level with a CHA mod of 2 could grant SR for 5 rounds(if you think this is too weak, I was thinking of making it 1 min./level). A paladin can only bestow a maximum number of SR on allies and self equal to his Paladin level + CHA modifier. A paladin of 11th level with a CHA modifier of 3 could therefore only bestow a maximum of 14 points SR on a single character - this makes it impossible for a high-level paladin to give someone ZOMG spell resistance. I figured that this is balanced, because at 11th level the party will be fighting some high-level casters with Spell Penetration, and even a lower-level caster, as long as they roll over 10 on the d20, will be able to surpass it.

I had someone who had their heart set on playing a paladin of Wee Jas. Being a kind-hearted DM, I acquiesced, and let them. Being that a holy-roller isn't really the kind of divine champion I imagine when I think of the Lady of Death, I tweaked the character.

Here is the variant I came up with - let me know if you think it is appropriate and balanced.

SKILLS: Replaced Knowledge(nobility), Ride, Heal, and Handle Animal with Knowledge(arcana) and Use Magic Device.

ABILITIES: I replaced a paladins summoned mount with the +2/level damage on a charging smite attack, and also changed the smite to only include evil outsiders, undead, and wizards in direct opposition to the will of the paladin's deity. Rather than Detect Evil, the paladin receives Detect Magic.

SPELLS: I completely removed spells and the lay on hands ability. Rather than healing points, the characters receives points of distributable Spell Resistance - thus a 9th level paladin with a charisma bonus of +2 has 18 points of Spell Resistance that she can besotw (no more than her CL + charisma bonus on a single target).

Is it too weak? Too powerful? Should I throw in Extra Turning as a bonus feat?

Thank you all for you help! The situation solved itself, though, you'll be happy to know -

I recruited a wizard, a pally, and a fighter... we're even-steven now.

Still, though, it was nice to know that you all care. <3

I'm running a game online that will end up having a very caster-heavy party. It looks like two clerics, a spirit shaman, a paladin, and a scout. Other than the paladin, there's nothing that's really heavy-hitting in the melee department (even then the paladin fails due to lack of combat customization).

If the "rules of balance" holds true for 3.5, I should be able to manage fine - should I just cut back on the total number of encounters per day, so that the casters are over-taxed and thus let the party down? Should I fill the gabs that combat leaves with more skill/class specific quests? Religious mysteries, perhaps, or quests that require comprehension and delving into the lore of forgotten religious sects?

Any help would be appreciated.

Oh, and I want to run a PbP forum Shadowrun game... but no one in the RP forums I've been to want to play it! Any ideas?

I play a character that my DM has affectionately titled a "pornomancer" (social adept).

We recently played a game where our characters had stolen millions of nuyen worth of military equpiment from an Aztechnology airfield. Not only did we do this, but we also managed to destroy half the base, take out numerous guards, organize a rebel strike against an outlying factory, and kill the base's top-ranking mage. Unfortunately they found us - thus began a statewide manhunt. After our troll and his girlfriend were killed, our sniper vanished, and our rigger was forced to stay in Cuba, it was three of us and a rep from the Russian mob trying to escape. With nothing but a high Con roll and a cigarette packed with a heat-activated nuerostun delivery capsule, my character hijacked a chartered fishing boat and we made our escape.

There is a sense of unbalance to Shadowrun that is perfect and real - sure, a mage can summon a Force 8 spirit to run amok, but one strike from a street samurai can take an initiate down. For example, my character can con his way into and out of any situation he wants, but the one time he's found out a single bullet from a low-level security guard can put him down. I only recently discovered this game and absolutely love it - it's everything that I want to see in DnD, only in a cyperpunk setting.

Oddly enough, I despise Eberron - I hate the entire idea of the setting.

Question: is there a Shadowrun-like system that allows for DnD fantasy customization?

Hi David,

I guess D&D can be what you are longing for, at least if the GM and the players wants it to be so, and put the focus on this.

But if you want a ruleset that favors this type of playstyle you like, maybe Rolemaster Classic (RMC) or Warhammer FRP (WFRP) are better cut for you.

I've heard a lot of good things about this Warhammer FRP, as much as I am loathe to admit such. I'm not a fan of high fantasy, but it sounds like a good deal. I'll look at both rule sets. Thanks!

There are some gamers who like Big Numbers. They are the kind of gamers who play Half-Orc barbarians and use their starting gold to buy every possible damage upgrade they can. Their character has minimal personality and likes to kill people mid-exposition because they talk too much. Ha! That'll teach the DM.

There is nothing wrong with this. People have fun playing RPGs with these rules. If they wish to have Big Numbers then, by God, let them have big numbers!

Some thought, however, needs to be given to people like myself, the gamers who prefer story over Big Numbers, the gamers who would like to see broader, more customizeable classes that could fit into any fantasy setting rather than a class tailored for endless dungeon crawls. I would like to see rules where skills were just as important as a base attack bonus.

Perhaps they could make an alternate rule set for gamers like myself... a set of DnD rules that still has the familiarity of the game (because I do really like the game and would be sad to break from it) with rules that are more role-playing centric. If I play a figher, I don't want to be doomed to be some sword-swinging dolt with two skills... I want to be a knight who rises through the ranks and becomes a general, marshal, or warlord, who commands troops and liaisons with other leaders, offering the services of myself and the members of my party to change the course of history. I want to see rules for this kind of RPG, where adventures are not just about crawling around a dungeon or finding the demon lord after slaying 1,587,234 of his minions. I want adventures that call for a group of heroes to rebuild a failing city, to act as an emissary and convince two nations to stop warring, and, if necessary, lay down the law with sword and spell (because combat it truly fun).

Perhaps, if we generate enough interest, they will create a 4th Ed with these ideas in mind, assuming that the Powers that Be read these forums.

Okay,m here comes the rant. Everyone who wants to thinik puppy-dog thoughts about 4e are requested to respond to this rant IN ANOTHER THREAD.

The elf, ala 4e, as seen on http://www.wizards.com/default.asp?x=dnd/dramp/20071221&authentic=true& amp;pf=true

So what's so terrifying about this?

All bonuses. There are no drawbacks to being an elf. No penalties, no reductions. Just good stuff. If this has been done at the race level, it has likely been done everywhere. These decisions are largely meaningless, because your no worse than anyone else, you're just better in some places.

Play an elf if section is Combat/Rules Only. There is no social reason to play an elf. There are three scant paragraphs about their background, all tied to a specific setting, but no rules to support it. They are easily moved to laughter, but that has no game mechanical effect,. Because apparently game mechanics are for stabbing things.

So, elves are tall now. All previous art and figures that made them short, as they have been in every other edition of DND ever, is invalid. And they are always creatures of the woods. Your savvy, city-wize, educated empire of elves with ships and trade routes and large urabn areas? Gone.

I feel your pain, Dungeon, and I cry for you.

DnD is becoming more and more a game tailored for a specific world or setting - their world. When it first game out it was made to be as broad as possible with racical personalities so that anyone could tailor things to exist in any world they created. I, personally, like the idea of a socialite elf. I'm running an early Rennaissance game right now where one of our characters was an elf swashbuckler who moonlighted as a professional actor. He loved the spotlight, loved showing off, and his elven personality was not tailored for a forest environment but proved a great boon to him in social settings.

As far as the racial bonuses, I'm all for this. Elves are, generally, more able than humans. If anything, they should restrict what classes they can take, or give them a penalty when it comes to resolve. Human heroes rise above in fantasy stories because they have what no other more-powerful race has: heart, drive, resolve, and an unconquerable ego. Generally, an elf would have more charisma or dexterity than a human - but an elf would be limited when it came to raw spiritual fortitude.

Unfortunately, with DnD's rules starting to move towards "pen and paper MMORPG", there are no game mechanics to account for this.

Molech:

These certainly are great "story" campaigns but I've learned that a campaign goal of finding out info, counter-intel, and such, then putting all the clues together and formulating a plan really needs to lead to roll-play action. Otherwise there is absolutely no sense of "game" to your game.

No one feels a sense of accomplishment at he end or the excitement of not knowing whether the PCs will win the climactic "fight."

Also, consider this; unless the DM is quite careful, it's way too easy to create a railroad-ONLY campaign.

In your Stranolm Port campaign, for example, have your evil NPCs at the (relative) beginning of their plots. The key to it all, even you, the DM, have no idea if they will succeed. You only know what the next step in their plans are.

---

Your advice is sage and falls upon open ears! I have taken into account all your advice.

Two of the main villians were among the first encounters. Noremac the Jeweler appraised the party's gems and they ran into the dwarf-murderer the first night. Nothing makes me feel better than having players voice OOC rage and desire to trounce an imaginary bad-guy.

I do not write stories, either - I write adventures in a way that I am sure you do as well. All I do is outline what the bad-guys will be doing over the course of a few weeks, outline their contingency plans, and then have them reacte as they would when the party throws a wrench into their plans. For example, when they ran out of the lair of the cult's high priest to recharge he used "lesser planar ally" to call a stealthy, hunter-like monster to aid his trackers in hunting the party down.

FYI: The campaign ended well and the players loved it. They specifically said that one of the best points was the "open-endedness" of the whole adventure. We had one casualty, though - the elf swashbuckler got skewered on the business end of the high priest's weapon.

To Nicholas:

I appreciate the input. I'll write down those author's names and check out "Curse".

And if I had enough pull to get it published, I would write a Heroes of Intrigue in a heartbeat

To Kirth:

Thank you for the input. I offered the party gestalt classes, actually, but they refused. I would have, of course, limited them to only one combat-class that had to have investigative/subtle capabilities (i.e. no gestalt barbarian/sorcerers) but they preferred to have single classes.

I'll check out the hero/action points (I like that idea a lot). I have 4 people in the group, but I budget time fairly and wisely. We have a very vesatile party, as well, and each has an important part in the adventures: the truenamer is the magical know-it-all for arcane mysteries, the cleric is the face/religious liaison for the party, the urban druid is the straight-up urban tracker, and the rogue is the scout/sneak/spy.

Glad to see I'm not the only person who likes story-intensive DnD rather than DnD that plays like a MMORPG.

I'm new to the site and saw these contests going on. Here's what I'm thinking: variant monsters. Take pre-existing monsters and add a twist to them. Check this out:

Hasidic kobold.

Good, right? Or maybe a new take on aasimars.

Gaysimar.

Yes? No? Maybe?

Just looked at the Blog entry showing the Golarion gnoll and have to register my disappointment. Too dog-like. Gnolls should be hyena-like.

That's it, not buying any more Paizo products! ;)

Be glad they didn't go with their original idea - poodle gnolls.

This is an idea I've been playing with for a long time, and I would like to see the interest it generates.

I have run a total of three very successful campaigns (creating my own setting each time), one not-so-successful campaign (my first), and am currently on my fifth. I wanted to try something different, breaking from the typically high-fantasy settings and Dark Age pulp of most DnD games. I created an early Rennaissance world with the game happening in a number of large cities where politics, trade, and low technology are the ultimate powers, rather than sword and spell.

The gameplay is not typical in that it is investigative. The party works for an underground organization called the Shadow Savants who are dedicated to defending the city from insidious and subtle evils (and often lock horns with the United Church and city-guard investigators). Rather than typical quests, the party receives adventures revolving around finding things out. "Something very strange is happening in Stranolm Port. Soon, we fear it will spill from the shadows and attack the city's people. Find out what the problem is but do not let anyone in the city know why you are there."

I have made use of many, MANY variant rules (defense bonuses due to the implementation of flintlock weaponry making typical armor useless, limited weapons [heavy maces and battle axes are now irrelevant], and classes such as Urban Ranger, Urban Druid, Thug, and cancelling the fighter class in favor of a house-ruled warrior/rifleman class), but the DnD rules are still unsuited for a later, investigative campaign.

This brings me to a number of questions:

1.) Is there a good rule supplement guide, other than Unearthed Arcana, for this sort of game?
2.) Is there a way to spread out skills to investigative ends (rather than just Gather Information) by perhaps cutting back on other skills? (i.e. Spot, Listen, and Search as an Awareness skill, or Climb, Jump, and Swim as an Athletics skill)
3.) Do you think that a variant of the DnD rules for more urban/investigative/modern games would generate any interest?

Please, share ideas, comment on this, or provide advice. I'd like to hear the ideas of other DMs who have tried to do something similar.